2002 NSAF In-Person Survey Methods

Report No. 5 in the 2002 NSAF Methodology Series

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The 2002 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) had both a telephone and an in-person protocol. This report focuses on the in-person protocol. The telephone protocol is described in 2002 NSAF Telephone Survey Methods, Report No. 9 in this methodology series.

There have been three cycles of data collection for the NSAF. The first was in 1997 (Cycle 1), the second in 1999 (Cycle 2), and the third in 2002 (Cycle 3). For information about in-person survey methods in Cycle 1, see 1997 NSAF In-Person Survey Methods, Report No. 5 in the 1997 methodology series. For information about in-person survey methods in Cycle 2, see 1999 NSAF In-Person Survey Methods, Report No. 5 in the 1999 methodology series.

Like both the 1997 and the 1999 surveys, the in-person component of the 2002 NSAF was designed to augment the telephone survey with a sample of households without telephones. During data collection, 650 interviews were conducted by in-person interviewers using cellular telephones to connect the respondents to telephone interviewers located in one of Westat's Maryland Telephone Research Centers (TRCs).

As described in the sample design report for the 2002 NSAF (Report No. 2), a multistage area probability sample was used to identify households without telephones. This sample was initially drawn in 1997 and modified for 1999 and 2002. The design included the following:

• A total of 68 primary sampling units (PSUs) consisting of metropolitan statistical areas or groups of counties.
• A total of 582 area segments consisting of census blocks or groups of blocks were selected within the PSUs. The segments had an average size of 28 occupied dwelling units (DUs).
• The segments had an additional stage of sampling, called "chunking," if census data indicated that the segments would be much larger than 30. In general, these segments were divided into two or more smaller "chunks" of approximately equal size, and one chunk was selected for listing. Large segments were "chunked" as part of all three cycles of survey operations.
• Within the sampled segments (or chunks), Westat interviewers listed and screened 18,177 DUs (of which, 16,183 were occupied). The average segment size turned out to be 31 DUs (28 occupied DUs) with a range from 0 to 78 DUs.
• Within eligible and occupied DUs identified during screening, persons eligible for the survey were selected for an interview.

The in-person fieldwork was organized into six regions headed by a regional field supervisor responsible for the work in the region. There were 6 traveling senior interviewers and 79 interviewers (85 in total). Interviewers attended a two-and-one-half day in-person training session on the use of all procedures, questionnaires, and materials. To enable close monitoring of the fieldwork, an automated field management system (FMS) was developed that operated on laptop computers provided to the regional field supervisors. The FMS captured and reported production and cost data on a weekly basis. Quality control of data collection was achieved through a combination of observing interviewers new to Westat and validating a portion of the work of every interviewer. Fieldwork was validated by checking each listing against the listing in 1999 and sending a second interviewer back to verify the work of some of the fieldworkers.

To complete the fieldwork efficiently, interviewers were trained to list a DU, approach the door, and prescreen the household with an adult household member, all in one step. Prescreening consisted of reading a brief statement identifying the interviewer and introducing the study before asking questions to determine eligibility (e.g., the absence of a telephone and at least one household member under 65). Once a household was identified as eligible, the interviewer explained that the interview would be conducted from Maryland using the cellular telephone and that each person who completed an in-depth voluntary interview would receive $20 in cash.

Calls coming into the TRC from field interviewers were answered by a supervisor who transferred them to telephone interviewers. The telephone interviewer then administered a brief screening interview to make sure the household did not have a working telephone and that someone in the household was age-eligible. Additional screening questions, similar to those on the telephone survey, were asked to select an appropriate person(s) for an extended interview.

The data collection period for the in-person component extended from March 12, 2002, through September 3, 2002. The overall response rate achieved in 2002 was 78.3 percent, lower than the response rates achieved in 1997 and 1999, 79.8 and 84.2 percent, respectively.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.